From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:11:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Locking fcntl() and flock() patches
Message-ID: <3A243B9A.31778.2984396@localhost>
In-reply-to: <5.0.1.4.0.20001128200658.0347bec0@pop5.banet.net>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1001128091411 DOT 27656C AT is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Waiting to hear from Mark on this, but it seems to me a reasonable 
> change to make.  Mark, what do you think?

I haven't been following the discussion. But from reading the earlier posts I 
see no problem with the change.

Also, I believe I wrote the mysterious comment (from my original code):
      /* DOS/Windows only support read locks on a per-file basis,
         so any attempted use of a read lock is an error.  */

based on some document, possibly the RBIL. Perhaps a better way to have put 
it would have been:
  /* DOS/Windows 9x do not support read locks, so any attempted use is an 
error.  */

It's better to specify Windows 9x and not just Windows since Windows NT can 
emulate read locks.

I can go along with the extra file handle checks, but I don't really think 
they're neccessary because the early _get_dev_info test does the job of 
filtering out bad handles.

Mark